Do you show clients your unedited photos so that they can choose which pose that they like the best? Or do you choose for them?
When you have a finished portrait for a client do you always put your logo on the photo?
Thanks for helping me answer these questions that I have.
Excuse me? What did I say about Pauls pictures? I didn't talk about his pictures at all. Except the huge yellow misplaced logo he has on them. No one ever said the client shouldn't have a choice ... he just shouldn't be presented with the whole bunch of pictures. I merely said the photographer should choose the selection, if there is one.
I also clearly state that it's my personal opinion, based on MY experience as a non professional photographer.
Aha! Did you ever stop and ask yourself WHY the stock agencies ask for this? Because no one want to pay for an image that has a logo in it!
You're totally naive if you think a (non-disruptive) logo can keep people from reproducing the image. So therefore it may as well be on the back, as previously stated.
But now I'm curious as to how this is done 'tastefully' as you say. How about uploading a few pictures, so we can see the logo in action?
Let's see some good old american marketing in action! :-)
Ok, settle down, lads! No need to get all worked up here :-)
Maybe my understanding of common practice is not that common after all, in the US at least, but you have to accept my personal point of view, which is that it's a bad move for both you and the client to stick a logo on the image itself. If the logo is placed on the back or on a white frame, that's another thing, and probably a very good idea.
Let me repeat again, so there's no confusion: These are my personal views only ... You can place a big pink cross right over the entire image, if you think it's beneficial for your image, your client and your business.
I would still like to see some of the images you have put your logo on. Maybe I'm wrong, and it actually CAN be done tastefully without upseeting the image or indeed the client.
Put your money where your mouth is! (or Stash, as in SRW's case :-)
I really don't understand why you try to twist my words into including an opinion about your images. I've said nothing about them, but you keep insisting that I hinted something. If you really want to know, then I'll be happy to offer you my honest opinion, but lets not pretend that I said anything thus far in this conversation.
"Stock agencies do not want images with logos or signatures, because the people they sell them to, like yourself, could not easily use them or want them. You being an owner of an ad agency certainly understands that, I would hope, as you have said."
EXACTLY! Why do you repeat what I say, and then pretend it's your argument? Try to focus a little, if you really want to continue this discussion. Which, by the way, you keep saying you don't?
SRW, do you even read what's been written or do you just see Paul's confusing comments, and take it from there? I never opposed to having a logo on a print. I opposed having a logo on THE IMAGE ITSELF. Remember, the discussion is about wedding pictures and portraits that people hire you to do.
A nice evening to all!
Well, this discussion has become pretty acrimonious.
I'm not much of a fan of water marks and don't use them because they are so easy to remove, and they draw attention from the photo. If you use Nathan's method of keeping control of the images, then water marks are unnecessary.
I have heard the suggestion, several times, of having a large portrait prepared to show a client and I think that makes sense since most people seem not to be able to visualize a large image when presented with a small image. Prints I have made from my own photos usually are much more impressive when displayed at a large size.
Speaking as a customer, if there was a logo that obviously detracted from the appearance or was blatant, it would upset me and I would cover it or not display it. Definitely the supplier would not receive a recommendation, or more business from me. Having the supplier information on a border that fits behind the frame or in a card holder in an album would be useful though as it would keep the information available if it was ever required.
This is an interesting thread and I bet Joy got more than she expected out of it!!! LOL
I'll just add my two cents about the logo/watermark question and make it quick. When I deliver the final images to my clients, I always include two sets of fully edited digital images, usually on DVD, along with the prints that may have been ordered:
I also ALWAYS have each of my customer sign a contract with me. It goes into details about how I work, their rights and all that other boring stuff... and upon delivery of the digital images, I also include a print release form so that they can print the high-resolution images at any lab without problem. It also includes copyright and licensing details.
@Studio Laurent: BINGO! That would be the way to do it!
@Leekin: I totally agree, if it's in the contract, there's nothing to discuss.
I only show my clients edited photos, period.
I put my logo on the back of my pictures with a copyright note and my name, period.
I mention all this in the written agreement, which they sign, period.
Is my work, not theirs..if they disagree after they sign, I sue, period.
Enough of this BS with spoiled customers wanting to change every market for their convenience, that's why there are pre- agreements, agreements and lawyers.
So far, I have never had a problem, provided I inform them in advance, and they agree in advance. If they still have a problem with the policies and procedures of your bussiness, politely send them to SEARS or WALMART, or just have them take a hike. You will be doing yourself, your fellow photographers and the industry, a huge favor.